Turnbull and Shorten not so different

Both come from broken homes, though each had one loving and supportive parent. Both went to top schools and universities.

And both were already prominent figures when first elected to parliament - Turnbull through the Spycatcher trial, the republican movement and various financial power plays and Shorten through the Beaconsfield mine collapse.

Of all Australia's prime ministers, at least of the past 60 or so years, only Bob Hawke would have had a higher profile pre-parliament.

Some of the most important - Malcolm Fraser, Paul Keating, John Howard - were, comparatively, callow youths unknown beyond their immediate family and political circles when their parliamentary careers started.

Fraser and Keating, both 25 when first elected, had little experience beyond politics.

Turnbull is particularly unusual in that he was 49, with several distinct and successful careers behind him, when he entered parliament.

Related Articles

Shorten, after the common Labor career path through the union movement, was 40.

Turnbull's been very good at making money, a skill less obvious in Liberal politicians than might be expected. They are, or so Labor would have us believe, the party of the big end of town.

Generally the Liberals have preferred political skills. Their experience with John Hewson confirmed that preference.

But political skills aren't always inherited.

The political gene ran deep in Kim Beazley, Alexander Downer and Simon Crean. But none of them, though becoming party leader, quite made it to the top job.

Turnbull is untroubled by such genes while Shorten has them only lightly.

All that so far suggests prime ministerial contenders are divided more by rhetoric than substance.

But there seems to be one big difference.

Labor challengers win when they can excite and enthuse.

Whitlam's powerful presence - apart from the "it's time" factor - overpowered Billy McMahon. Hawke, the confident larrikin, ran rings around the dour Fraser. Kevin Rudd, whatever you think of his government, looked young and fresh and full of beans against a Howard who'd got into the ring once too often.

Liberal challengers, on the other hand, do best promising to fix up Labor's mess.

Fraser was the beneficiary of Whitlam's excesses and Tony Abbott destroyed what was left of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government.

Howard was a little different against Keating in 1996. But by promising to make people relaxed and comfortable, he was rejecting the politics of charisma.

Perhaps that means voters are fickle - they want to be excited by the prospect of Labor in office, but once they experience it they want to retreat to the comfortable Liberal embrace.

That would be good news for Turnbull, because Shorten is not exactly setting the crowds alight.

The PM, meanwhile, has suppressed the passion he once let loose and carries on interminably about jobs and growth.

History's lesson: Don't underestimate the potency of boredom for the Liberals.